Only in the sense that they are both derived from the Japanese saying.

I picked the username a while ago for a different forum; for some reason I can't recall I needed a username that was not my real name and I picked this one at random. It has no special significance of any kind for me.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:There was a recent incident in Australia where some education reform suggestion had glaring mistakes like calling "set of" in "set of bowls" an adjective, "capable of" in "capable of doing" an adverb, and other things like that.

It makes me sad that I'm not sure what to call those patterns... I think I learned the first one in school as "group nouns", but I don't know what to call the latter construction at all.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:There was a recent incident in Australia where some education reform suggestion had glaring mistakes like calling "set of" in "set of bowls" an adjective, "capable of" in "capable of doing" an adverb, and other things like that.

It makes me sad that I'm not sure what to call those patterns... I think I learned the first one in school as "group nouns", but I don't know what to call the latter construction at all.

"set" is a noun and "capable" is an adjective. "of" is a preposition and both the examples there are prepositional phrases.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:There was a recent incident in Australia where some education reform suggestion had glaring mistakes like calling "set of" in "set of bowls" an adjective, "capable of" in "capable of doing" an adverb, and other things like that.

It makes me sad that I'm not sure what to call those patterns... I think I learned the first one in school as "group nouns", but I don't know what to call the latter construction at all.

"set" is a noun and "capable" is an adjective. "of" is a preposition and both the examples there are prepositional phrases.

Ah, OK. I know "capable" is an adjective. Come to think of it, though, prepositions where always taught to me as a "location" type of word group ("on the table" "in the house"). I never would've thought of "of" as a preposition.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:...... There was a recent incident in Australia where some education reform suggestion had glaring mistakes like calling "set of" in "set of bowls" an adjective, "capable of" in "capable of doing" an adverb, and other things like that.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:but people refuse to even acknowledge that linguistics is important to know, which I do not understand -- it's taken as a given that everyone should learn some math and science, even if they are not going to be mathematicians or scientists. But even though everyone uses language constantly, every day, even the basics of linguistics are either not taught in schools or taught incorrectly.

Well, it could be argued that many people get along fine without being taught linguistics, including people such as professional writers. Being able to diagram a sentence is admittedly of limited use to learn how to speak and write better. I can diagram a sentence very easily now, but I think it has little to do with any improvement in my writing.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:Even linguistic keywords/jargon like "bound variable" and "determiner" shouldn't be that hard because all native speakers of English know what these things are, they just don't know the terms for them, and may not be consciously aware of their existence.

I think students already understanding the underlying concepts is actually what the problem is. People don't feel inclined to learn about grammar because they already know it. Although I grasp English grammar terminology very easily now, I definitely remember the time when words and phrases like "appositive", "dependent clause", "nominative case", "subjunctive mood", etc. would send me running for the hills. Now I wonder what the big deal was. I think the only thing that changed was that I started caring.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:but people refuse to even acknowledge that linguistics is important to know, which I do not understand -- it's taken as a given that everyone should learn some math and science, even if they are not going to be mathematicians or scientists. But even though everyone uses language constantly, every day, even the basics of linguistics are either not taught in schools or taught incorrectly.

Well, it could be argued that many people get along fine without being taught linguistics, including people such as professional writers.

Ignorance of linguistics is at the heart of a lot of the absurd claims made about English; that you can't end sentences with prepositions, can't split infinitives, can't use possessives as antecedents to pronouns because they're "adjectives", etc. Usage guides are full of nonsense because even usage writers don't think they need to understand grammar to write a guide. People think it's fine to stigmatize dialects for being "inferior" because they've never been taught that they're not.

I'm speaking from experience teaching Japanese grammar to students when I say that ignorance of basic grammatical concepts is a hindrance to learning grammar in a foreign language, and many books essentially avoid grammar teaching as much as possible.

Being able to diagram a sentence is admittedly of limited use to learn how to speak and write better.

I don't think that's true at all, especially for people whose native dialect is not standard English.

Issues of overcorrection are direct results of people trying to apply usage rules when they don't understand the underlying grammar of what they are writing.